No4Mk1/3 in 7.62?

G

goldidig

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
206   0   0
Location
Nova Scotia
Hi fellows, I just went on a gun buying expedition today and brought home a few new Milsurps for the collection. One was a nice full wood, matching numbers on everything, clean, as issued 1943 Longbranch No4 Mk1* with LongBranch struck out and it's NOW marked No4 Mk1/3(F) FTR and it is chambered in 7.62. Looks like it was redone in 1954 as a No4 Mk1/3 but unsure as to whether that was when it would have been converted to 7.62 as well. I am assuming it was rebuilt to 7.62 in the Fazakerly plant as it has F stamped on all the parts. Nice rifle and it doesn't look like it has been fired much at all. I have to find a magazine for it however as the owner misplaced it in a move and cannot find it. This is the first one of these I have ever seen and I was wondering just how scarce they really are? My Lee Enfield books don't say much of anything on these particular rifles at all.If any of you guys can enlighten me on these guns I would sure appreciate it.
Thanks!
Al
 
Wow, glad to hear you're not stopping looking for the Enfields out East :)

Can't say I have answers to the questions you ask this time though, Goldidig, sorry! Congrats on that latest aquisition.

Louis
 
goldidig said:
... 1943 Longbranch No4 Mk1* with LongBranch struck out and it's NOW marked No4 Mk1/3(F) FTR and it is chambered in 7.62. Looks like it was redone in 1954 as a No4 Mk1/3 but unsure as to whether that was when it would have been converted to 7.62 as well.
Click to expand...

The rifle was built in wartime as a .303. In 1954, it was still in UK service and was given a mid-life factory thorough repair. Anything that could be gauged or inspected got a less frantic second look. If something needed to be done it was. The slash three means the trigger was modified so it's pivot was attached to the receiver and not to the trigger guard. A design feature that could have been there in the first place. Then sometime later, after NATO standardized on 7.62, the rifle had a third stay in an a gun plumber's shop when it was converted with a new barrel and bolt head.

goldidig said:
.... Nice rifle and it doesn't look like it has been fired much at all. I have to find a magazine for it however as the owner misplaced it in a move and cannot find it. This is the first one of these I have ever seen and I was wondering just how scarce they really are? My Lee Enfield books don't say much of anything on these particular rifles at all.If any of you guys can enlighten me on these guns I would sure appreciate it.
Thanks!
Al
Click to expand...

Don't worry about the magazine. These conversions were made for target shooters and not for soldiering. The magazine was a loading platform for single shots not for reloading 10-shot strings. There are British 7.62 magazines but unless there are some relief cuts under the receiver, these mag won't feed right.
 
A 7.62 bullet obviously won't fit/feed well in a .303 magazine. If you have an Enfield in 7.62 and no mag, it's practically a guarantee that it was converted in private hands for target shooting and the useless mag was lost or disposed of.
 
Thanks for the comments and info fellows. Now the good news for me is that I checked and my rifle has the relief cuts under the reciever so the proper 7.62 mag will feed properly! I had a member P.M. me and he has a couple mags, but holy smokes, they are EXPENSIVE! Do you guys have any idea what are these rifles are worth roughly? I don't mind spending the cash for the mag but I don't want to get in over my head on the darn gun price wise. It is a nice rifle though and I sure look forward to trying it out at the range.
Al
 
we would need some pics to answer that question accurately. If it's a DCRA conversion in nice shape and complete possibly as much as $600-$700. If it's a privately done conversion without the mag 250-300.
 
You really should do some research and determine how the rifle came to be converted to 7.62mm. If there are no bayonet lugs, and if there are serials added, and if there are CA marks, it was a conversion done at Long Branch for target shooting. The only correct magazine would be a .303 one, for single shot use.
If there are bayonet lugs, and proper British marks on the barrel, there is a chance that the rifle was an official service conversion. These are semi-experimental and were not considered satisfactory.
If there is a breeching washer, it might be a Sterling barrel, the conversion having been done by heaven knows who.
There are basically two 7.62mm magazines, one made by Sterling for their conversion, the other the magazine for the L42.
There is no way of saying what the rifle is worth without knowing exactly what it is, apart from what you paid for the rifle. It was obviously worth that much to you.
 
Thanks! I just checked Numrich. They have new manufactured mags for the Ishapore SMLE .308. Not sure if they are the same or not but if they are the price is definitely right! $38.45 I'm waiting to hear back from them now.
This gun has bayonet lugs and NO breeching washer. I'll try to get some pics snapped of it as soon as I can and post it. The bolt head looks like it had a small slot machined into it and a different small piece of steel inserted into it a few milimeteres back from the bolt face. I'll attempt to take a photo of this when I take the rest of the pictures. Aside from the dufus who owned it before me, scratching .308 on the left side of the reciever, it is a fine rifle. Regardless what the value end sup being, I think I'll stash it away in my 'keeper" collection just for a conversation piece.
 
the SMLE ishapore mag will work in the rifle, but you will have to remove( cut, grind) the rear of the mag to remove the secont lock lug. it wont look correct, as to DCRA but it will function and work well.
 
Beater said:
the SMLE ishapore mag will work in the rifle, but you will have to remove( cut, grind) the rear of the mag to remove the secont lock lug. it wont look correct, as to DCRA but it will function and work well.
Click to expand...

I vote for pay the bucks for the correct Enfield mag (about $120), particularly if the relief cuts have been made in the bottom of the receiver.
BTW, is the bolt head stamped 19T?

Forget the cheapo Ishapore repro mags, they won't enhance your rifle at all.

Love to see some good clear pics of this whole rifle. :)
 
7.62 Enfield

If the gun came from NS target shooters it may have been built by a gentleman in Truro by the name of Campbell.
He was a gunsmith for years, I met him in 1975 when I was a student at NSAC. His knowledge of Enfields would rival the best scholars.
An outstanding collection and I only saw a few of his pieces.
 
Al, the gun didn't come from NS target shooters. Here's a few shots of the rifle. I'll snap a nice side profile shot if we ever get some sun. I take my profile pics oiutside in the good light and it's been raining for 3 days here. Here is a side reciever shot showing the markings. Note one of the former owners lightly scratched his name on it. Farther back he scractched .308 as well which isn't in the photo. That is behind the ejection screw.
342375590.jpg

After examining the rifle by removing the wood, I see it was rechambered in 7.62 by simply cutting off the old barrel threads, rethreading and rechambering in 7.62. The barrel still is stamped .303. How's that for confusing. Here's the photo of the barrel as well as another No4Mk1 standard barrel to see the difference in original chamber area.
342375642.jpg

342375652.jpg

Also here is a photo showing the milling in the reciever to allow for the .308 mag.
342375602.jpg


They had to modify the stock at the muzzle to allow for the 1/2" shorter barrel and the lower stock had the wood recut and metal cap riveted back further while the front guard had the wood and metal milled off almost to the first rivet.
342375549.jpg

Sorry for the poor shots of the bolt but you can see the rectangular insert of different steel that was installed in a machined slot in the bolt I assume to provide a stronger bolt face?
342375556.jpg

342375571.jpg

Hope this helps a bit with the description of the rifle. If there is anything else you'd like to see specifically photographed, just say so and I'll snap a pic.
Al
 
I cannot imagine what that work on the bolthead was intended to accomplish; I cannot see how it would make the head stronger. Weaker perhaps.
Extractor looks as if it has been changed.
Unless the barrel has an unusually tight bore, it is going to be a bit loose for .308 bullets. Might or might not shoot well, it would be necessary to try it.
The rifle appears to have been made up by a tinkerer. I would be a bit circumspect about using it, until you have confirmed that it is safe. You have no idea about who set the barrel back, how well it was done, and what the headspace is like.
The .303 commecial proofs are on the breech of the barrel. This would suggest that the rifle was proofed at B'ham without a handguard. Service configuration rifles tend to have the commercial marks on the exposed muzzle. This suggests that the rifle was sported at one time.
The calibre conversion was not done in the UK. If it had been, there would be 7.62mm or .308 proofs.
 
The smaller bolt face was probably done to allow the rim of the cartridge to be ejected. With the standard 303 bolt, the base of the round sometimes/most of the time did not get moved over enough for the ejector 'screw' to hit the base of the empty case as it was being extracted.

Just a guess???
 
This modification may not have been done in the U.K. BUT one thing for certain is that it was done quite a while ago and was done by a professional. The work on the stock was definitely done in a jig and the end caps were riveted on just like original and nothing seems to have been done haphazzardly. I assumed that piece of metal inserted into the bolt head was a different tensile strength piece installed in the bolt face to have greater resistance to setback possibly. I really don't know. I simply have never heard tell of anything being done quite like this. Every piece of wood is numbered correctly and every metal part is F for Fazakerly with many having the numbers 54 on them. I do see two pieces of the wood stamped both in 1954 and again in 1955 as well. I did read somewhere on the web in the past couple days that there were several different types of 7.62 conversions experimented with that were never issued and some didn't perform satisfactorily at all. If someone did this conversion in their home shop they had some fine tools to work with and some serious firearm knowledge. As far as .308 diameter bullets, I have 2 .303's that have tight bores and they shoot fine with regular .308 diameter bulets but I'd actually have to try this one and see what it was like. Not quite sure how to actually have this gun checked out to see if it is safe to shoot but I am sure that using .308 handloaded to .303 pressure levels it would be O.K. at least. I am definitely in no rush to shoot it and picked it up more as an oddball for in my collection than anything. Thanks for all the communication guys. It's always neat to see some odd stuff out there and this one sure looks like it fits that category.
Al
 
Last edited:
I don't really know if this is relavent to this thread, but in the matter of safety, I may be able to throw a little light or at least a comparison into the picture.

I have two Brazilian mausers, built by Itajuba, that was originally chambered for the 30-06 Spring. They were made up as carbines in 7.62x51.

They were built as a familiarization/training rifles from what I can gather. It has an H&K G93 rear/front sight and a large, heavy flash hider/brake on the muzzle.

The barrel was shortened to 19.5 inches before the flash hider was attached.

The barrel was shortened from the "chamber end" then rechambered to 7.62x51. Headspace is perfect as is the bore. The rifle handles and shoots very well with surplus ammo.

The chamber area has a lot less meat than your Lee Enfield. The Brazilians refurbed thousands of their rifles this way.

When I was there in 1976, I saw several in use with rural police and a militia unit that I was privileged to shoot with, because of a very nice young lieutenant in the Brazilian army. I don't elaborate about her to my wife.

Good troops by the way, not at all as Latino troops are portrayed in the movies.

Anyway I'm wandering off the subject, sorry. Both of my rifles shoot well with the amunition they are designed for and IMHO are safe with the ammunition they are designed for.

I'm willing to bet that Lee Enfield of yours is fine safety wise, with the ammunition it's designed for.

bearhunter
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom